Originally posted by aparch
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
New WCHA is dead
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
“We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”
—UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925
-
Originally posted by The Sicatoka View PostDoes the NCHC pass the "no good dirty money-grubbing ruining college hockey jerks" baton to the CCHA now or in the fall?“We offer no apology for our location at 64 51’21’’ north latitude. We are building for the future and we are confident that well directed effort and education are the forces which make progress possible”
—UA President Charles E. Bunnell, 1925
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by The Sicatoka View PostDoes the NCHC pass the "no good dirty money-grubbing ruining college hockey jerks" baton to the CCHA now or in the fall?St. Norbert College Green Knights
NCHA regular season champs: 97-99, 02-08, 10-12, 14, 16, 19
NCHA playoff champs: 98-99, 03-05, 07-08, 10-14, 17-19, 24
NCAA Champions: 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2018
---
SNC women: 2013 O'Brien Cup Champions
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bonin21 View PostIt's not the players bud... It's the cost...
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by GB Puck Fan View PostI thought Penn State would get blamed... it was, arguably, the first domino.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
When Purina owned the Blues they let SLU play at the Checkerdome for basically free. Then Purina sold the team and the new ownership didn't want to continue that agreement. There is an arena on campus now that can do ice, but they have to get special equipment or something they're isn't a dedicated system for maintaining ice.Thinking that NMU is way better then your school with no evidence or proof since 2001.
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by Bonin21 View PostIt's not the players bud... It's the cost...
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by mmf View PostActually, the moniker is more about the way it was handled then the end result.
But to be clear, you’d be against the CCHA adding any new team that required a flight?
I was sad seeing teams like UIC, Kent State, and Wayne State go away while I have been watching college hockey. I will be sad if the Alaska schools and Huntsville go away. I also realize Lake Superior State is a tiny school, one that might not still have a hockey program at this level if it hadn't established itself in the way it did in the NCAAs during the '80s and '90s. Even with those accomplishments, nothing is guaranteed for LSSU in the future and it has to make decisions in its own financial interest to support its college hockey program.⚓
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by RapidsCity View PostThey pick up a portion. But it still costs more for Lake Superior to go to Fairbanks than it does to go to Bowling Green.
And also, do you know what LSSU's total travel costs were to UAF this year and exactly how much of a subsidy LSSU received from UAF? I have never seen those numbers. I would be curious.
Comment
-
Re: New WCHA is dead
Originally posted by mmf View PostIt’s not the players. It’s also not the cost. When the nWCHA was formed the contract called for UAF and UAA (and UAH) to subsidize team travel to Alaska or UAH so that the cost to those traveling teams was no more than the next costliest trip those teams had in conference. I have no idea if the actual subsidizes were little more than expected, a little less than expected, or right on the money. Ignorant fans comment on the cost all the time, but never from a position of real knowledge. Never heard that UAF, UAA or UAH were not meeting the terms of the WCHA agreement. Cost is more likely an excuse and not a reason. Inconvenience and a desire to regionalize the footprint is probably the reason. That’s fine. But the process was about as ChickenChit as you can get.
Comment
Comment